RTBU (Rail, Tram & Bus Union) Strike 29th Jan, What Say You?

[Deactivated] on 18/01/2018 - 10:32
Last edited 25/01/2018 - 16:34 by 2 other users

NSW RTBU (Rail Tram & Bus Union) is planning a strike on Monday 29th of Jan, the first day of school this year, and the first working day after the Australia Day long weekend.

Union tells Sydney commuters to stay at home during the strike.

The strike announced merely a week after they took sickie, blamed the timetable and the storm

"The trains will go to bed on Sunday night and won't come back out on Monday," union secretary said.

The union wants its workers to get a 6 per cent annual pay increase, but the Government is refusing to budge on its offer of a 2.5 per cent rise.

Update 1

Despite today's talks, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) NSW secretary Alex Claassens said that at this stage, the planned 24-hour strike would still go ahead on Monday, January 29.

Update 2

Possible pre-strike on Thursday 25th after failed 3% payrise negotiation

Confirmed pre-strike:
train services will be significantly reduced from Thursday 25 January and through the Australia Day long weekend.

Update 3

On Monday 29 January all stations will be closed and no trains will run across NSW.

Update 4

The planned industrial action impacting train services has been suspended by the Fair Work Commission.

Poll Options expired

  • 134
    They deserve 6% pay rise each year over the next 4 years, for what reason?
  • 586
    They already lucky with gov offer of 2.5% pay rise.
  • 21
    They should get 1% pay rise or pay freeze like some of us.
  • 78
    They better off live in a dream world with fairies and unicorns.
  • 42
    I don't care, I drive my $80k investment car.
Travel

Related Stores

Rail, Tram, and Bus Union
Rail, Tram, and Bus Union

Comments

        • [Deactivated] on 24/01/2018 - 12:57

          @ninetyNineCents:
          Side step "Have official driving records and /or qualifications that outline work history in Train Driving."

          "Have the ability to demonstrate the technical skills and experience of a Train Driver."

          Read.

          Stop shifting arguments. Asking for some copy and paste action isn't a good argument shift.

        • ninetyNineCents on 24/01/2018 - 13:01

          @tshow:

          TS:
          Side step "Have official driving records and /or qualifications that outline work history in Train Driving."

          "Have the ability to demonstrate the technical skills and experience of a Train Driver."

          99: I stand corrected, the text does say what you claim. Given management cant write up a sensible set of requirements, did you really think they could somehow actually manage the claims the drivers have been making about excessive overtime ?

          ~

          TS: Asking for some copy and paste action isn't a good argument shift.

          99: Its called providing proof for your claims. If you have proof its called manners to share it with others.

          All scientific papers are written this, when you make a claim you share the evidence. Thats how courts of law and other professionals do things.

        • thetrain on 25/01/2018 - 09:52

          If you seriously want to apply to be a train driver, they're hiring!

          https://iworkfor.nsw.gov.au/job/trainee-train-driver-98834

          No prior experience required, they provide the training

  • lonix on 20/01/2018 - 19:06

    i live in melbourne, but yeah i probably should, in the interview ill promise to never join a union

  • c9 on 20/01/2018 - 19:34
    +1

    Now just need the rangers on strike too so I can drive to work. Public transport is overpriced anyway

    • ninetyNineCents on 21/01/2018 - 17:00
      +2

      Public transport should be free. The government makes no money on playing we are a corporation running OPAL not to mention how it forces more people on the roads.

      • orangetrain on 22/01/2018 - 08:32

        The politicians get indirect kickbacks from selling off public assets. Even if they did a thesis on economics concluding free PT means a better economy.

        Higher ticket prices, strikes or shitty PT? More customers for roads with tolls.

        • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 09:36

          Yes i think we all can see the politicians get benefits from all these arrangements in the end.

          The q is very simple, the cost of OPAL doesnt or barely pays for itself. Its a glorious exercise spending money on teh system, just so it barely makes money to cover its own expenses and tahts only the start of the cost to th epublic.

  • SpaceNinja on 20/01/2018 - 21:59
    +9

    Self driving public transport will be a thing shortly. They won't have to ask for any rise then, as they won't be on payroll; hehe ;-)

  • chengjianer on 20/01/2018 - 22:05
    +3

    If you don't want that job, give it to me, i promise won't ask for a pay rise for 5 years! :)

  • Sammyboy on 20/01/2018 - 22:24
    +1

    Will be interesting to see how the driverless/unmanned train trials go in China.
    Amazing how unions in certain industries will push for exorbitant wage increases, even with the risk of companies moving overseas, or switching to automation.
    Almost seems to be like playing chicken

    • thetrain on 20/01/2018 - 22:27
      +2

      Driverless trains have been operating around the world for many years.

      The NorthWest Metro will operate without drivers.

      • Sammyboy on 20/01/2018 - 22:28
        +1

        I guess this will only accelerate the switch to automate more lines then

    • outlander on 21/01/2018 - 22:32
      +4

      Right. Because pretending to be meek works for anyone with their neck on the chopping block.

      As soon as driverleess transport is reliable, cheap enough and politically viable, it will be done, no matter what the unions have or have not done. Its just a matter of time, which might be why they are trying to get their dues now

      • counterbargainglobal on 23/01/2018 - 22:51

        No, they are just gonna get paid to do nothing even more, the legislation from government will be like driverless cars, you will always be required to have someone backing it up incase of an emergency. Damn you guys are morons.

        • outlander on 24/01/2018 - 00:12
          +1

          Right. Just like elevator operators, yes?

          In this climate of constant cost cutting, there is no way that they will employ the same number of people to man an automated system. Its ludicrous. That you would even suggest that shows your inability to see past the surface of the situation

  • Dreamcast on 21/01/2018 - 00:02
    +1

    Ahh yes, an excuse to work from home :D

    • [Deactivated] on 21/01/2018 - 10:23
      +1

      Its good to have the privilege to WFH, some office jobs can do this, especially IT.

      I pity those who rely on public transports but can't WFH, people in retails and trades or any jobs who require you to be physically there will be the most affected.

  • fez on 21/01/2018 - 10:44
    +1

    Driverless transport

    • ninetyNineCents on 21/01/2018 - 17:02
      +3

      Driverless transport isnt free.

      Look at OPAL costs over a $100M A YEAR just for the software contract, and the initial contract cost $300-$400M. Opal costs 5x more than paid human ticket sellers evre costed, and the same will be true of driverless trains.

      Feel free to google for "opal software contract nsw" and start reading how much it costs compared to paying people.

      • orangetrain on 22/01/2018 - 08:34
        +1

        Can we get cheaper fares overall if government allowed free PT after getting rid of opal, ticket inspectors etc?

        • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 09:38

          We should scrap opal and make it all free. It costs hundreds of millions to run EVERY year. Its just a glorious wasteof time collecting money just to pay for itself.

          The gov would say billions on road works, with less cars on the road. They also wouldnt need to build a lot more freeways, roads, this and that.

          THe truth is opal only exists so a few people can pretend they are making a profit and pay themselves big ceo type pay.

          The gov every few yrs has to give hundreds of millions to make thje suystem work. Opal still hasnt even paid for the $300-400 MILLION the initial contract to develop the system cost. It also hasnt paid for the installation of all those machines, cameras and so on. There are manhy other factos that are reqjired to make the system work which arent charged to the opal "business". Opal is getting a free ride from the tax payer.

        • Chumly on 22/01/2018 - 23:22

          @ninetyNineCents:

          Opal exists for surveillance purposes as well.

        • ninetyNineCents on 23/01/2018 - 09:40
          +1

          @Chumly:

          Opal is a ticketing system. There is no value in tracking where you or me catch a train to anyone. You can alao buy cards anonymously so that is pretty poor choice for a surv system.

          In other words no its not.

        • Bren20 on 23/01/2018 - 13:54
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents:

          I'm a transport engineer, we can use opal data for planning purposes, to understand travel patterns. But if we didn't get it from opal we could get similar data from telstra (but much more expensive)

        • ninetyNineCents on 23/01/2018 - 13:57

          @dinna89:

          There are much simpler ways to count pedestrian traffic, you dont need a ticketing system that costs $80 a year and over $300M to "prepare". A simple infra red sensor across an entrance can count traffic.

        • Bren20 on 23/01/2018 - 14:43
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents:
          I'm certainly not trying to justify Opal on the grounds that it gives me a useful dataset, just that there is some value in tracking people, although the data we use anonymised (i imagine only police would have access to the raw data, but i don't know much about that).

          Opal data doesn't just give data on spot counts, but it gives a good picture of where people are travelling to and from. For example, if it is known that there is a large amount of trips heading between two location, services between these areas can be improved, or good connecting services provided. This kind of data is otherwise very hard to reliably collect

        • ninetyNineCents on 23/01/2018 - 17:13
          -3

          @dinna89:

          Ok fair points but the same could be achieved by infra red counters at doors to count peple for each station. THe dataset would almost be the same albeit you wouldnt know the begin and end of each trip.

          Anyway for the billlions it cost is a glorious waste of money.

        • Bren20 on 23/01/2018 - 17:20
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents:
          Except for very simple systems the methodology you described would give terrible quality data, i would be laughed out of the room if i tried to defend that approach.

          FYI, the other way of collecting this data is to physically ask people, or track their phones (via cell towers, bluetooth, or wifi). All these options are prohibitively expensive for most planning purposes, and often give biased results.

        • ninetyNineCents on 23/01/2018 - 17:25
          -4

          @dinna89:

          i meant the train doors culd measure pax as they enter and leave trains. The whole data collection is bullshit, the idiots running the trains cant even count or compute they shluld have enuff drivers before committiung to significant increase in services.

        • Bren20 on 23/01/2018 - 22:25
          +2

          @ninetyNineCents:
          All I'm saying is that the Opal data is personally useful to me and my profession. I am only mentioning this in response to 'There is no value in tracking where you or me catch a train to anyone'. I disagree, i get value from it.

        • ninetyNineCents on 24/01/2018 - 10:21

          @dinna89:

          Yes and thats my point. They want to pretend they are so sophiscated with graphs and projections and management cant even get the most basic things right like having sufficient staff to actually drive the trains.

    • outlander on 21/01/2018 - 22:30
      +1

      If you want to predict the future just look at the past. If we ever get driveless transport, it will be run by private enterprise, and the savings to the taxpayer will be minimal.

    • counterbargainglobal on 23/01/2018 - 22:53

      Idiot, you don't know what that means, legal requirements always need someone behind the wheel incase of an emergency or malfunction. Programming is NEVER PERFECT.

  • suchan on 21/01/2018 - 18:27

    It's precisely because the management fails to see the relationship between employee happiness and better customer service that we have this issue in the first place.

    The three main supporting conditions for employee happiness (healthy pay, balanced working condition, and respect they deserve) will result in better customer service and ultimately growth in revenue for government.

    Sure, they may be "happy" to accept the 2.5% pay rise, but if they do so without being promised better condition, they wont be happy at their job. In the end we the customers / commuters lose.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2018 - 10:25
      +2

      You can look at this two ways.

      Perspective 1 - give them what they demand and they'll be happy.
      Give anyone what they want and they should be happy but it sets a precedence that to get what you want, all you have to do is hold something ransom and make your demands. There isn't a promise these people will offer better customer service (otherwise there will be a plan a protocol draft proposed) so that argument is invalid.

      Perspective 2 - give in and we will have to keep giving in

      The unions will not see a win as a public granted favour. The union has already make it very clear it is their entitlement. No one is grateful to receive something they are entitled to, and most certainly, no one makes changes if they get their way regardless.

      Now, if the government sacks the lot and gives the job to people who actually want to be there, the main supporting conditions you mentioned will be met and taxpayers wouldn't have given in to a one sided "negotiation" hence no extortionist precedence would have been set.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/01/2018 - 20:47

      Yeap, we the customer always lose. Also, bro, better not put your pic and your real name on your profile, trust me.

  • cheap-sk8 on 21/01/2018 - 19:26

    maybe time for a reform? some losses in the present but prepares for the long term. i heard rumours that government run sectors are very inefficiently run.

  • gekiyasu on 22/01/2018 - 01:37

    Sydney siders should be thanking the striking workers for giving them an extra long Australia Day weekend. Especially those commuters that will be permitted to 'shirk from home.'

  • zzzsianzzz on 22/01/2018 - 04:37
    +5

    R,T,B has free rides on their network. They are not considered to be higher risk than other government occupations, like police and medical staff. Engineers are even higher risk.

    Medical staff have exposure to ill people that might be contagious. They don't have free hospital or GP visits, crazy people throw stones in paramedics vehicle reported on news.
    Police get bashed or verbally abused for issuing tickets or stopping parties.

    If those drivers are willing to do a government role swap, try another government job then.
    They are technically operators in an air conditioned and safe environment.

    The train drivers were unable to keep up with the schedules provided, running late on trains, buses and trams. my public transport experience is at least 2 are not punctual and sometimes 3 of these. Cancelled trains at spur of moment and caused inconvenience to public for 1.5 hours at train stations, incompetent management, failed to provide refunds like Vic trains for performance.

    Is there KPIs? No (or obviously ignored), what is so special about the drivers to request for 6%?
    Using google, most government staff in NSW are on 2.5%, do you want to take up a job on shift as a nurse or police?
    http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/careers/conditions/Awards/nurse…
    https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/police-tipped-for-pay-r…

    They want 6%?! Present your case to the public and their fellow government staff to make a fair and partial judgement. Don't hide behind the union and serve your public, not self interest, otherwise, find a new job, NSW taxpayers do not need you.

    • SydBoy on 23/01/2018 - 15:41

      Just because other government employee don't have strong union doesn't mean RTBU is wrong…..start engaging and paying union at your work place to protect your work rights.

      • zzzsianzzz on 24/01/2018 - 20:05

        So causing public inconvenience, state economic impact and holding your company ransom is right? And also rail is not considered to be emergency service. They are on shift roster but not 24 hours like others. It also opens up another question, why arent the medical and police services have equivalent pay raise then?because the union is weaker? Well you should see what a real strike is when all of them walk from their jobs.
        If there is dismissal because they chose to go down the disruption path, they deserve it. Also, the unions are strong for those who have more to lose, and some are not really specialised skilled that it cant be replaced. Those that didnt join unions, just look for other jobs. E.g., medical staff like nurses are needed everywhere.

        • SydBoy on 24/01/2018 - 21:26

          Government is negotiating since last 8 month so they have enough time to negotiate but government didn't offer or negotiated so is the strike.

          Nurses, doctor and paramedic should do the same if they need pay rise else everything will be privatised by liberals.

          Just because nurses and paramedic didn't fight well doesn't mean other should accept lower wages.

          Fight for your work rights as no one else will do it for you!

        • zzzsianzzz on 24/01/2018 - 23:15

          @SydBoy:

          I would question my own ethical and rational. Why am I going on strike, because they pay me badly, then should I go elsewhere or change careers if this is already something that I am bored of or unable to provide me with what I wanted to have before?
          I mentioned in my other post, it is also responsibility. Walking away and not doing your job while getting paid is irresponsibility, does not matter how you phrase it. I might get negative to the max., but thats the truth.

          If I am a nurse or doctor, when my union tells me to walk, I should walk away from my job, and not save someone that is on the hospital bed. Well, some people would, some people wouldn't. It might jeopardise my career, and my professional license might get suspended to get a few percent over 3 years. Is it worth it?

          I would also say that, if the government pays badly, their attrition of staff is obvious, and they will walk by finding another job, or opening their private practice and bringing others with them. They will just be another training centre. You can also show your displeasure by leaving the company and join other companies that might pay you better than what government does.

          Police officers can also be licensed security guards, bouncers, or bodyguards.

          Also, some people have mentioned they get fired for walking away on their job or not turning up. Doctors can also be charged for negligence if they walked away while in the middle of surgery.

          Train drivers can also go to other state to work or work for freight companies.

          The options is always open, its the path that you choose that matters.

        • SydBoy on 25/01/2018 - 07:42

          @zzzsianzzz: your frustrations clearly is with fact that you didn't get pay rise and other are going to get it. As you didn't say anything about government's moral responsibility to negotiate and resolve this matter within 8 month they had to negotiate.

  • daleyboy79 on 22/01/2018 - 09:17
    +2

    Does everyone here actually know who is the largest employer in NSW (and possibly Australia)??? … Thats right its the NSW Govt!
    All public service workers (except for pollies and ceo's of course) have been limited to a 2.5% pay rise for the last few years … during that very same period everyone has been wondering why wage growth has been stagnated … can anyone else join the dots???

    • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2018 - 10:35

      If inflation was 1.8% over the last 12 months, and every public worker got a 2.5% pay rise for basically having time passed, that's a whopping 0.7% increase in the value of the labour provided even though it is the same exact product.

      6% pay increase would mean 4.2% increase in the cost of the same labour. That cost translates to higher burden on the tax system (and some has to pay for that, just FYI), increased wages = increase property value = increased rent = increased running cost = further inflation.

      Two arguments presented above. 1 - why should the cost of labour (all else being equal, ie. Same skill level) increase?. 2 - has anyone siding with the union spared some consideration to the economics that everybody else has to live with?

      • mysterytal on 22/01/2018 - 10:43

        If only inflation was really 1.8%. It might be the headline rate but it's not the real rate.

        My public transport fares have gone up by 5%. House prices/rents have gone up by at least 5%. Minimum wages have gone up by 3.3% which increases the price of labour which is added to the cost of goods and services by at least that much.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2018 - 11:23

          Inflation is averaged based on average household spending. It is hard to level the inflation so it is a plug and play figure.

          We can all identify that 6% is far above inflation and the repercussions will be further inflation in all other sectors. Whenever a large group asks for a significantly higher pay, it has a snowball effect on consumer economics.

        • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 13:02
          +1

          @tshow:

          Thts not entirely true, inflation is calculated based on a fixed set of inputs with some balancing or weights adjusting their importance. They dont count everything and anything, thats why the numbers may seem very strange too some, because its a very crafted formula.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2018 - 13:47

          @ninetyNineCents:
          I agree. It is an arbitrary construct and at times question the details but overall, it is a basis for everyone's income, be it public sector, private, welfare, etc.

          It's by no means perfect but it serves its purpose as a point of reference.

      • daleyboy79 on 22/01/2018 - 11:42

        The RTBU isn't expecting to get 6% … guaranteed they would take 4% in a heartbeat!
        And you obviously didnt join the dots … economically speaking

        • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2018 - 11:49

          I'd be glad to attempt "joining the dots". What are these dots?

        • daleyboy79 on 22/01/2018 - 11:57

          @tshow: What is the govt's main gripe at the moment … "people arent spending as much money so we aren't collecting as much taxes etc etc". While the token inflation figure may be low, In Sydney at least, property (rent/buy) and basic services like electricity have far outpaced this. Only solution i see to get people spending again is to start paying people more … but if the largest employer refused to pay more, why would anyone else???

        • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2018 - 12:13

          @daleyboy79:
          I think the government's concern that people aren't spending enough is a government disaster. In the US, they call this Reagnomics - it rationalizes that for an economy to work, people must keep spending. This is of course true if viewed in isolation but it becomes a problem when the spending comes from borrowing (hence increasing national debt).

          Nobody likes a "paycut" whether it is perceived, relative or direct but the harsh reality is that the government is in debt. Management getting paid more is dubious but the topic at hand is the rest of the workers, which represents a bigger overall cost.

        • thetrain on 22/01/2018 - 16:24

          @tshow: Budget surplus for NSW 2016-2017

          $5.7 billion …

          That's the harsh reality

        • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2018 - 17:07

          @thetrain:
          I believe it is 4.3b, however, the national debt is at 551.1b and increasing and there's still no solution for the baby boomers hitting retirement, healthcare and longer life expectancy.

          You draw a salary and after expenses, you find your bank statement in the black. That doesn't mean you go looking for more liabilities like a car loan for an upgrade. The home loan is still interest only and you're expecting twins. This is the harsh financial reality.

        • Baysew on 22/01/2018 - 17:56
          +1

          @tshow:

          NSW budget surplus grows to $5.7 billion

          Treasurer Dominic Perrottet on Tuesday tabled the final result for 2016-17 as a surplus of $5.7 billion

        • thetrain on 22/01/2018 - 18:19

          @tshow: Imagine we freeze NSW public sector wages at 0%. Does does improve the national debt?

          No!
          The NSW government would have a greater surplus (higher net assets), but the NSW public sector would have decreased wages (and reduced capacity to pay off personal debt).
          Net effect = no change in national debt. Government richer, people poorer

          This is a NSW government with no net debt. To claim increased NSW public sector wages will increase national debt shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the government and financial system works.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2018 - 18:19

          @Baysew:
          Fair enough. That's a more recent source.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2018 - 18:29

          @thetrain:
          NSW may not have a debt but the nation does. National debt is as much a NSW problem as it is any other state as the federal government spending isn't directly proportionate to any measure of collections or population of the state.

          Committing to a higher pay and guaranteed pay increase = more spending. Of course, anyone can tell you that buying anything isn't going to put anyone in debt but it is the sum of the spending. How does spending more in wages benefit tax payers or contribute to the budget?

        • thetrain on 22/01/2018 - 18:54

          @tshow: Spending more does not benefit tax-payers. NSW government spending more has no effect on the federal budget.

          Of course more pay = more spending

          I merely point out the fallacy in linking national debt to NSW public sector wages. NSW government with net surplus and zero debt increasing public sector wages is living within its means.

          National debt (private and government) is an issue but increasing/decreasing/steady NSW public sector wages is not the solution.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/01/2018 - 19:13

          @thetrain:
          I didn't bring up the issue of budgets, just merely pointing out that a surplus isn't an indication to spend more needlessly as there is still a looming national debt.

          Increasing public spending by paying them more is the equivalent logic of shopping more for bigger savings.

        • daleyboy79 on 23/01/2018 - 11:50

          @tshow: If national debt is your main concern … NSW govt paying their workers more would help alleviate national debt, not worsen it. Workers getting paid more equals workers being able to spend more, so more GST revenue for states and the federal govt collecting more revenue from more income and company tax (from higher wages and spending).

        • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2018 - 12:55

          @daleyboy79:
          By that same argument, why not increase all government worker salaries and raise it much higher?

          That's precisely Reagenomics which plunged the US go deep into debt. It isn't even bad economics, it is mathematically broken.

          You cannot increase spending and expect to make more money if the money spent isn't on assets. If the train driver's have to up skill or work harder to receive increased wages, that's an investment. Increasing wages and not getting anything concrete in return is foolish. It increases liability without any asset gain.

        • daleyboy79 on 23/01/2018 - 13:41

          @tshow: NSW govt is making money and has no debt (afaik) … so them alone spending more money (but still within means) should assist all other forms of govt should it not???

        • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2018 - 13:49

          @daleyboy79:
          If viewed in isolation, it works. State governments is to federal government what a department is to a smaller entity. They receive a budget and they are free to use it as they see fit. If they underspend by a lot, their budget may reduce the following year (directly or indirectly, ie. Projects that may have been funded by fed gov may instead be funded by state. Just an example). Lower spending = lower funding drawn from federal government.

          Of course, some will argue it is not in the interest of the state in that case but national debt is exactly that. National.

          Side note - NSW is also making money by selling off public land and infrastructure. The state has to sell assets to be in the surplus (we all know examples of this. Ie. Chinese foreign investors as a sufficient example). Selling assets and using the surplus to commit to more liability is financially foolish.

      • SydBoy on 23/01/2018 - 15:46

        Where is the economy when housing prices gone up in million dollar in Sydney…..other government employee don't have strong union that is why RMS was able to privatise maintenance of roads in Sydney and the results are visible…..on road with higher cost to maintain roads in Sydney.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2018 - 15:49

          Unions and privatization are separate issues. A union cannot stop privatization, vice versa. A union does not represent the company, it represents the workers.

          The economy and housing prices with relation to pay is a good argument, and it is an argument against wage increase. Careful with the points you want to use.

  • counterbargainglobal on 22/01/2018 - 10:42
    -7

    I like how everyone is like 'it's so selfish of them' you do realize that's a loaded sentence right? You're a moron if you say that because clearly you're thinking about yourself and how it's going to inconvenience your day (sorry but fighting for a pay raise is an inconvenient truth).

    A lot of people are also saying "but they have such a high wage already", what has that got to do with anything if their wages actually haven't risen or kept up with indexed inflation? You morons shouldn't be comparing other people's wages relative to what they got, where is the outrage at the shit pay for retail workers? Just because it's 'unskilled' it's justified that they get abused? (You as$holes are hard customers sometimes and it takes skill not to hit you in the face)

    • cameldownunder on 22/01/2018 - 10:57
      +4

      Are you talking as a NSW transport employee to the public here @Ozbargain as your customer?
      "You're a moron", "You morons", "You as$holes are hard customers" )
      <sarcasm> That's the way to get "our" support for "your" cause: Call us names, we like that</sarcasm>

    • keffola on 22/01/2018 - 11:06

      "what has that got to do with anything if their wages actually haven't risen or kept up with indexed inflation"

      Can you show evidence that train driver wages haven't risen or kept up with indexed inflation instead of insulting people? I thought public sector wages were locked at 2.5% rises which has been either at or above the rate of inflation for the past few years.

    • zzzsianzzz on 22/01/2018 - 22:44
      -1

      you know what you are saying right?! you are placing your own interest above everything else.
      I seriously hope you will NEVER EVER use any other government services and attended by those government staff that have a lower pay raise than you. When you are injured, those paramedics should go on strike to get their fair pay before attending to you. Hope you get your private insurance ready, and your own bodyguards. If you do one day request their help, you owe all of them that helped you as a government staff an apology!

      I dont think you are less of an arsehole than those hard customers you face. What are your assumptions based on that those emergency staff does not face, you seriously think there are no hard patients in hospitals (medical) or dealing with drunkards and gangs (police)? Time to jump out of your small little well.

      As a lifeguard, you might get sued for saving people after he or she tries to save them because they break their fragile ribs while trying to save them. So if you have a death wish, please say so and don't drag others with good intentions. There is lesser of these good Samaritans if they are all jailed. Guess what, more people will just join the crowd to watch the commotion, not trying to save people though.

      Some people are in government jobs, not for the money. Some people are in there for their own interest and because of job security. obviously, you are the latter.

      If you want 6%, get a private job. You can have millions like any executives, whether it is CBA executive or NAB executive. Whats the 6%? Its nothing, join investment banking, assuming if you have the skills and qualities.

      Also if you walk away from your job, its called irresponsibility!! And your colleagues who chose to do the right thing, will stay to do their part and have to clean your crap up.

      Its a service industry for government anyway.

      Now look whos the arsehole.

      • SydBoy on 23/01/2018 - 15:47

        Just because your union failed to negotiate pay deal that doesn't mean you take your frustrations on other union….😁

        • zzzsianzzz on 24/01/2018 - 23:26

          nah, I think they should stop their nonsensical behavior and act like adults.
          I give you another example, financial services union, do you see them go on strike often?
          I don't work for any of those, but I think they should get equivalent of what rail workers get. I give them credit for what their job is, whether they do it properly and correctly, is out of my reach. :D
          If fighting solves the problem, the world will be in chaos, killing or robbing one another does not solve the problem.

    • ChillBro on 23/01/2018 - 14:48

      This entire thread is biased so I wouldn't take it seriously in any way.

  • PAPower on 22/01/2018 - 12:40

    Does anyone know what the current pay is for Sydney bus/train drivers?

    I remembered serving a bus driver at Subway in 2011 and he said he got $27 an hour on a normal weekday.

    • CLoSeR on 22/01/2018 - 13:06

      What a bus driver is paid is not comparable to a train driver, I think the figure you quoted for bus is ballpark.

      • cameldownunder on 22/01/2018 - 13:52

        I know I guy who was bus driver … earned peanuts.

  • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 13:00
    -7

    Im going to guess the train hitting the barricade in Richmond SYDNEY today was caused . by a very tired driver who was forced to work and missed stopping the train.

    I wonder if everyone will now say the train drivers dont deserve less overtime…

  • UFO on 22/01/2018 - 14:21
    +6

    Tell'em their dreamin!

    Asking for 6% increase every year when the rest of the Public Service is limited to 2%!?! Get stuffed.
    Demanding triple the inflation rate or striking should be criminal.

    Sack all of them holding the Government to ransom like this. Don't give them the 2.5% offered either. 2%… that's it.

    • vid_ghost on 22/01/2018 - 15:10
      -2

      Yet it only puts them at the same level as QLD and MLB Train drivers after the 5 years of 6% increases. .. That's fair and not asking for more then what LESS BUSY QLD and MELB train drivers already make per year!

      • UFO on 22/01/2018 - 18:47
        +2

        Vid, if some of the payrates are to be believed, then two wrongs definitely don't make a right. QLD and MEL are well overpaid in that case.

        6% compounded over 5 years is 42% on base salary. If they are truly 42% above Sydney train drivers, and Sydney train drivers are already making off pretty good, then NO WAY should their current salaries be going up so much. No way. That's a problem for the other states in why they are getting so much money… it doesn't mean Sydney should do the same.

      • Powershopz on 23/01/2018 - 09:39

        I was interested in your "LESS BUSY QLD and MELB" claim so did some digging.

        Turns out Melbourne Public transport is under significantly higher strain than Sydney. Sydney overall has about 6% higher patronage than Melbourne [FY16 SYD @ 595 (Train, Bus, Ferry) vs MEL @ 560 (Train, Bus, Tram)] however Melbourne has significantly less services running resulting in more people per service.

        Melbourne trains for example in 2016 had 18% more people per carriage, per trip than Sydney. No wonder I feel like a sardine when I catch the train.

    • PAPower on 25/01/2018 - 09:52

      Agree. Expect to see train/bus driver in the Skilled Occupation List for Australia migration soon.

  • Ryballs on 22/01/2018 - 17:10
    +2

    Why does the first poll option end in the words "for what reason?"

    • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2018 - 17:21

      Because the union hasn't clearly stated why they deserve the payrise. They did whinge about better working condition, which is another demand on top of the payrise.

      • Ryballs on 23/01/2018 - 18:44
        +2

        Oh okay. The poll just seemed a bit biased against the union.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2018 - 20:17
          +2

          Most train commuters will be against the union on Thursday and Monday. And brace yourself for another opal increase in July. Someone has to cover the cost of their payrise.

        • syousef on 25/01/2018 - 09:56

          @blaccdong:

          That's because most people are selfish, narrow minded and self defeating.

          What increases have the drivers had in recent years?

          This action cancelled a family trip to the zoo for me while I'm on holiday. I support the train drivers getting paid fairly, and I support reasonable increases in pay for all workers - 2.5% doesn't cover cost of living increases. A lot of things I am paying for went up 10% at the start of this year. I doubt they'll get 6% but I'm guessing they will settle for 4%-5%.

  • GabbaKing on 22/01/2018 - 18:45
    +7

    So if 6% Payrise is fair for transport than what about emergency services such as cops, ambos and firies. Surely they should ask for more than 10% increase. A 5 year senior constable gets paid around 80k and works his butt off including working on public holidays.

    Oh they'll get fired if the don't turn up to work.

    • UFO on 22/01/2018 - 18:48
      +5

      That's exactly right!

      And it makes me sick to think train drivers (as important as they are), actually get paid more than a copper putting his neck on the line every single shift.

      • daleyboy79 on 23/01/2018 - 13:47
        +4

        hundreds of occupations that get paid more than coppers!!! but i agree its not right … same as the crappy pay that nurses/teachers/fire/paramedics etc get compared to others. The simple reason is that there's heaps of nice people in the world who want to do those jobs and help others … hence govt's don't need to pay as much to attract the workers … the world is not setup to reward nice people unfortunately.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join